Chineseness in Contemporary Chinese Art Criticism
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Chineseness in Contemporary Chinese Art Criticism ELIZABETH LEE Elizabeth Lee “Chineseness in Contemporary Chinese Art Criticism” Fall 2007 Of the many controversies riddling China today, one of the most interesting and ideologically profound is occurring in the small but fast-growing arena of contemporary Chinese art. From its inception, Chinese modern art was an anomaly. Its ideas were not native and its forms were acquired. Having been isolated for decades, Chinese artists of the 1970’s, 1980’s and 1990’s struggled to situate themselves in the fully developed modern art tradition of the west. Attempting to understand the new world open to them, these artists adopted the avant-garde forms of pioneers like Braque, Duchamp and Warhol all in a ten-year period. What was remarkable was not the speed at which they traversed the canons of modern art, but rather their adoption of art styles that had no cultural significance to their development or their people. This prompted many critics – in the west and at home – to accuse them of being mere imitators of western art, producing insignificant ectypes of the real thing. For these artists the challenge was in making themselves relevant to a western aesthetic hegemon without being marginalized by their Chineseness. One of the most interesting factors impeding the Chinese modern artist is Chineseness. The term, coined by the West during the early 1990’s to describe a particular quality of the art and the people of the Middle Kingdom, has been the catalyst for a refinement and review of the essential characteristics of China. The development and subsequent discussion of the idiom “Chineseness” is colored by multiregional and often-contradictory views of what it means to be Chinese. While some see it as an exogenous deprecation of the Chinese, others take the term to denote a pre-existing ND User E. Lee 1 quality that necessarily identifies China in contrast to the west. Such ambivalence surrounding Chineseness has caused and promoted deep-seated misunderstandings about Chinese contemporary art. Cultural critics have had an especially difficult time with the concept trying to delineate, differentiate and defend Chineseness from other forms of postcolonial exoticisms like japonisme. With so much at stake, the contemporary Chinese art critic must walk a thin line between being too Chinese and being too western. The question that will be discussed here is how has Chineseness affected Chinese contemporary art criticism? To define the role of an art critic is a difficult task, one that requires a thoughtful characterization of art, and the critic. In most cases, understanding the critic is a less daunting exercise than grappling with the meaning – or meaninglessness – of art. Loosely, an art critic is one who evaluates a piece of art. Depending on how one limits the term “evaluates,” the title could extend to everyone or no one. Regardless of the number of professional critics, it is, however, the case that this role is being played by more and more people as the art market grows to ever-larger lengths (and monetary figures). As the latest record for a contemporary Chinese artwork shows – 6 million U.S. for a 1995 Zhang Xiaogang oil painting – the prices are rising and the number of galleries and art shows selling contemporary Chinese art are following suit. In 1996 the first independent Chinese art gallery, ShanghART, opened in the lobby of a local hotel. Currently there are at least three “art districts” in Beijing – Song Village, Factory 798, and Chaochangdi village – that are “bursting at the seams;”1 with every gallery owner and artist practicing a little bit of art criticism. For Clive Bell, the late 19th century 1 Nancy Moffett, “China’s All the Rage,” Chicago Sun Times (December 26, 2000). ND User E. Lee 2 British aesthetic theoretician, a critic acts as a sort of guide who directs the uninspired towards what is aesthetically great, showing them the significant form latent in a work of art. Perhaps following this method, one might say that it is the critic’s job to distill years of experience into bite-sized pieces for the insensitive art lover and to point out the noteworthy aspects of a painting, sculpture or cave drawing. The work of an art critic is at once a subjective inference and an objective analysis: presenting what art is, and trying to make the viewer “see something that moves [him].”2 This understanding of the ‘art critic’ may indeed have its own critics, however, the term is grounded in a Western aesthetic conception that systematizes, develops and prioritizes key Occidental art-critical standards based on the prior writings of Western philosophers and aestheticians. Bell’s view that art is independent of the cognitive formulations of life finds much opposition in the writings of art historians, critics and curators in China. The work of Li Zehou, Wu Hung, Li Xianting and Zhu Qi present this division, either directly or in their treatment of art criticism. In Li Zehou’s The Path of Beauty: A Study of Chinese Aesthetics, he holds to the idea of cultural essentialism: that each culture has its own way of understanding and seeing the world. This concept is not foreign to the West: in Truth and Other Cultures Michael Baxandall describes a “perceptual training”3 that draws upon the culture one is a part of. The ideas are similar, but their presentation is vastly different. Baxandall folds this thought into his theory of intentionality and perception, developing his own philosophy of art that is both contextualized and universal. Li Zehou, on the other hand, shows us this idea by 2 Clive Bell, Art (New York : Rupa & Co., 2002), 18. 3 Michael Baxandall, “Truth and Other Cultures,” in Patterns of Intention, (New Haven : Yale University Press, 1985), 107. ND User E. Lee 3 particularizing Chinese aesthetic history using examples from thousands of years of civilization in China. Describing the Guofeng section of the Book of Songs4 Li says: “Unlike the ancient epic poems of other nations, they are short verses that, from the very beginning, influence and inspire people by their lyricism and practical rationality. They are works of art that embody the national characteristics of Chinese aesthetics.”5 Through this national characterization of aesthetics, Li compiles a distinct aesthetic theory that is rooted in the history of China’s culture. He gives the Chinese an aesthetic that belongs to their soil and spirit, an art with roots in the people and land of China. This sentiment is by no means applicable to all the cultural critics in China. However, a sense of responsibility to society in the aesthetic theories and critical dialogues surrounding contemporary Chinese art is a distinguishing quality of Chinese critics. The very recent history of the People’s Republic of China is still so fresh in time that it seems almost wrong for a critic to think of contemporary art outside of politics. Even the ‘International’ art like that of Xu Bing, as we shall later see, continues to be read through the lens of politics. Such was the case particularly in the years after the Cultural Revolution. During this time, the idealism of the late 1980’s subsumed all aspects of art to the service of creating a new culture for China. This new culture was supposed to be outside the repressive regime, but in doing so, constantly referenced the collectivist government as the other. Thus, the artwork and its reception were always politically charged. 4 Shi Jing, translated as the Book of Songs, is China’s earliest collection of songs and poems. Compiled during the Spring and Autumn period, it consists of 305 pieces divided into three categories: Feng or Guofeng (‘Styles’ or ‘National Styles’ – a collection of popular songs), Ya (‘Elegance’ – courtly songs) and Song (‘Odes’). 5 Li Zehou, The Path of Beauty: A Study of Chinese Aesthetics (Hong Kong ; New York : Oxford University Press, 1994), 52. ND User E. Lee 4 A pioneer of the ’85 New Wave (an art movement that began in 1985 and lasted until 1989), Li Xianting is one of the most influential voices of Chinese contemporary art.6 He is considered the “godfather” of today’s Chinese artists who affectionately call him Lao Li, which is translated as “Elder Li.” In an interview with Andrew Solomon of The New York Times, Lao Li is described as devoted “to encouraging those ways of thinking that empower his society.” Solomon characterizes Li as being driven by his “sense of moral purpose.”7 Although Li’s lifestyle reflects a certain dedication to the Chinese avant-garde, Solomon’s portrayal of Li as a benevolent and selfless teacher reiterates a Confucius-like figure that may have more to do with the Western idealization of a Chinese educator, than with Li’s actual engagement with artists. Nevertheless, historical and literary accounts show that in the 1980’s, Lao Li along with the ’85 New Wave attempted to change society through an idealized model of art. Reminiscent of the elitism and drive for societal improvement of early American museums, this movement’s sense of responsibility to society is still apparent in the writings of Lao Li. His devotion to the Chinese society reflects a deeper consideration of his role in the art world. In addition to being an art critic, he serves as teacher and supporter of the arts. Another distinctive aspect of contemporary Chinese art criticism is its relationship with its more established and well-acquainted Western counterpart. When the gates to the West opened in the 1980’s, Chinese intellectuals read as much Western philosophy and aesthetic theory as they could get their hands on.